UDIA HOT TOPICS – STRUCTURE PLANNING REFORM & LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW 26 SEPTEMBER 2012 PAUL ELLENBROEK PROJECT MANAGER – LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW

BACKGROUND  Structure plans - fundamental tool to translate planning strategies and policies into a framework to deliver coordinated land development.  Structure plans - principal implementation tools of the planning system (statutory schemes are the principal control tools).  Town Planning Regulations and Model Scheme Text review identified the need for standardised structure plan scheme provisions and format/content guidance.  Audit of local planning schemes across WA - total of 68 structure plan provisions with little consistency.  Part of the WAPC planning reform agenda to streamline, simplify and track structure planning and achieve consistency in structure plan requirements across WA.  Structure plans - fundamental tool to translate planning strategies and policies into a framework to deliver coordinated land development.  Structure plans - principal implementation tools of the planning system (statutory schemes are the principal control tools).  Town Planning Regulations and Model Scheme Text review identified the need for standardised structure plan scheme provisions and format/content guidance.  Audit of local planning schemes across WA - total of 68 structure plan provisions with little consistency.  Part of the WAPC planning reform agenda to streamline, simplify and track structure planning and achieve consistency in structure plan requirements across WA.

STRUCTURE PLAN ISSUES  Hierarchy, format and content inconsistency.  Increasing level of detail/complexity.  Inconsistent use, assessment process & approval timeframes.  Digital data submitted in various formats, with different land uses/zonings not aligned to local planning schemes = Inconsistent implementation & data capture = tracking/monitoring difficulty.  Structure plan reform focus on process and determination timeframe consistency & infrastructure planning integration and coordination.  Hierarchy, format and content inconsistency.  Increasing level of detail/complexity.  Inconsistent use, assessment process & approval timeframes.  Digital data submitted in various formats, with different land uses/zonings not aligned to local planning schemes = Inconsistent implementation & data capture = tracking/monitoring difficulty.  Structure plan reform focus on process and determination timeframe consistency & infrastructure planning integration and coordination.

PROCESS  Reference group (inc UDIA) set up.  Consultants engaged to develop Guidelines.  Main objectives of Guidelines:  Standardise the scope, format and content of structure plans;  Define the statutory and non-statutory sections of structure plans;  Detail the information required to be provided for each type of structure plan; and,  Encourage pre-lodgment consultation (early resolution of issues, especially infrastructure provision/coordination).  Guidelines support the proposed Planning and Development (General Provisions for Local Planning Schemes) Regulations to standardise local planning scheme provisions to achieve state-wide governance & assessment process consistency.  Reference group (inc UDIA) set up.  Consultants engaged to develop Guidelines.  Main objectives of Guidelines:  Standardise the scope, format and content of structure plans;  Define the statutory and non-statutory sections of structure plans;  Detail the information required to be provided for each type of structure plan; and,  Encourage pre-lodgment consultation (early resolution of issues, especially infrastructure provision/coordination).  Guidelines support the proposed Planning and Development (General Provisions for Local Planning Schemes) Regulations to standardise local planning scheme provisions to achieve state-wide governance & assessment process consistency.

CONSULTATION  Guidelines & Standards released for 3 month public consultation period.  46 submissions received, approx. 450 comments raised, with general support.  Guidelines & Standards further reviewed & refined to address:  Comments & issues raised in submissions.  DoP statutory & strategic planning teams requirements.  alignment with related DoP projects, policies and work practices.  Guidelines do not address governance, process & technical requirements – role of Regulations & LN review.  Guidelines & Standards released for 3 month public consultation period.  46 submissions received, approx. 450 comments raised, with general support.  Guidelines & Standards further reviewed & refined to address:  Comments & issues raised in submissions.  DoP statutory & strategic planning teams requirements.  alignment with related DoP projects, policies and work practices.  Guidelines do not address governance, process & technical requirements – role of Regulations & LN review.

STRUCTURE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS  Guidelines revised to improve:  Clarity, readability and reduce duplication.  Inclusion of a template to outline format and requirements for the statutory section of structure plans for consistency.  Additional detail in respect to environmental assets.  Alignment with other policies, including use of definitions and terminology for consistency (especially activity centres).  Guidelines revised to improve:  Clarity, readability and reduce duplication.  Inclusion of a template to outline format and requirements for the statutory section of structure plans for consistency.  Additional detail in respect to environmental assets.  Alignment with other policies, including use of definitions and terminology for consistency (especially activity centres).

STRUCTURE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS  Discourage irrelevant annotations on structure plan maps to ensure clarity and provision of structure plan related data & information only.  Ensure the level of POS detail reflects the type and purpose of the structure plan within the statutory (part 1) and non- statutory (part 2) sections.  Provide use of density ranges and coding plans for increased flexibility.  Emphasise structure plans should not pre-determine subdivision layout - lot configuration, levels & site works.  Discourage irrelevant annotations on structure plan maps to ensure clarity and provision of structure plan related data & information only.  Ensure the level of POS detail reflects the type and purpose of the structure plan within the statutory (part 1) and non- statutory (part 2) sections.  Provide use of density ranges and coding plans for increased flexibility.  Emphasise structure plans should not pre-determine subdivision layout - lot configuration, levels & site works.

IMPLEMENTATION Replaces WAPC Guidelines for the Preparation of Local Structure Plans for Urban Release Areas, June 1992 and part of Liveable Neighbourhoods, 2007 Released 5/9/12 & commences 5/11/12. Only applies to new structure plans submitted to LG on or after 5/11/12. All technical matters raised in submissions captured & considered in the review of Liveable Neighbourhoods Track & monitor structure plans through Urban Development Program All process & governance matters raised in submissions captured & considered in the Planning and Development (General Provisions for Local Planning Schemes) Regulations

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW  Standard policy review model won’t work for LN review.  LN review model both rigid to withstand pressures & flexible to respond to changing circumstances and requirements.  Cross government & industry involvement & support critical for success.  Focus 1 st on identifying & capturing all broad review issues, filtering down to detailed/technical issues last.  Standard policy review model won’t work for LN review.  LN review model both rigid to withstand pressures & flexible to respond to changing circumstances and requirements.  Cross government & industry involvement & support critical for success.  Focus 1 st on identifying & capturing all broad review issues, filtering down to detailed/technical issues last.

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW  Focus on 4 key considerations:  What works = leave it alone!  What works but could work better = adjust.  What doesn’t work at all = overhaul.  What’s not covered = identify, investigate, consult & if agreed, include.  Focus on end product ‘on the ground’ – use leading case studies & best practice examples to demonstrate ‘how to’.  Consider alternate methods & approval paths (form-based codes):  Deemed to comply = approval certainty.  Design principle/performance = developer flexibility & encourages innovative/best practice outcomes.  Revolving review by element - including key stakeholders & experts along the way.  Focus on 4 key considerations:  What works = leave it alone!  What works but could work better = adjust.  What doesn’t work at all = overhaul.  What’s not covered = identify, investigate, consult & if agreed, include.  Focus on end product ‘on the ground’ – use leading case studies & best practice examples to demonstrate ‘how to’.  Consider alternate methods & approval paths (form-based codes):  Deemed to comply = approval certainty.  Design principle/performance = developer flexibility & encourages innovative/best practice outcomes.  Revolving review by element - including key stakeholders & experts along the way.

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS Structure planning to create liveable communities STRUCTURE PLAN ROLE, METHODS & DELIVERABLES Framework, Process, Consultation, Content, Operation, Implementation Staging and Monitoring URBAN STRUCTURE Built Form design Density/ Diversity Land use & Compatibility Affordability Activity centres/ corridors MOVEMENT People Good and Services Linkages Transport infrastructure Activity centres/ Tods SPACES AND PLACES Open Space Environment Heritage Activity/ community centres ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Employment Activity Centres Tourism Commerce COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE Education Health Civic Age Care UTILITIES / SERVICES Energy Waste Water Telecommunications Resource conservation

LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW

Comments to the LN Review Team at: PAUL ELLENBROEK PROJECT MANAGER – LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS REVIEW